"To make tents or not to make tents? The question has relevance to church planters, not only because it is the biblical norm, but because more and more ten-makers are getting involved in the work of church planting. One must realize that if church planters are receiving the bulk of their income from donor gifts, then they are forfeiting their ability to be an example to the majority of believers... It is almost universally taken for granted that credible missionary work is the work of a paid professional who trains up indigenous leaders who think they must be fully supported. Westerners have carried this philosophy all over the world as if it were an essential part of the gospel. The expansion of the church, reduced to its elements, is a very simple thing. It asks for no elaborate organizations, no large finances, and no great numbers of paid missionaries. In its beginning it may be the work of one man who is neither learned in things of this world nor rich in the wealth of this world. Rather, it is one who has been with Jesus and is full of the Holy Spirit." (Tim W. Bunn; God's Plan for Church Planting - Church Planting Manual, Using God's Timeless, Supra-Cultural Principles; p.135-137; IMD Press, 2008)
What am I to do? I am one of those fully supported missionaries. It is true that fully supported missionaries have only existed for a couple of hundred years. Before that I think it is correct to say that missionaries all had jobs (i.e "tent makers") while they were spreading the Gospel. It is true that people do view missionaries with suspicion when they don't have a job. It is true that I probably would be a better example to local believers if I was working. I wouldn't have much time to do anything else though, especially language study.
I can't see ourselves giving up our financial support in the near future but I'll have to keep considering this issue and whether we do need to give up our support and find a job to be a better example.
What do you think?
Posts
4 comments:
It's also true that the Gospel has spread much farther in recent centuries thanks to dedicated missionaries. As a cross-cultural and cross-linguistical worker, I personally don't think I would be able to do much as a 'tentmaker'. But it's not the example you'd want to set, especially when starting a house church movement...
I question Bunn's assertion that tent making was the Biblical norm. In 1 Corinth 9:3-7, Paul points out that he and Barnabas are the exceptions, not the rule. Paul made tents because of practical and Biblical considerations- not because it was a general requirement for all church planters. And Paul did, at least sometimes, receive gifts from supportive donors (see Philippians 4:10-20, especially 16 & 18)
Re-read 1 Tim 5:17-19. There are many full-time ministers in the church, supported only by the church itself. This seems to be an over-reaction to one particular issue that has arisen in some missionary church plants. An issue that needs attention for sure, but I don't think tent-making is the only answer (if an answer at all).
I'm not yet totally convinced that 1 Tim 5:17-19 is talking about financial support It is talking about "honor". Especially in light on v.19 which is about bringing false accusation against in elder. 1 Cor 9:3-7 is more clearly talking about Apostles being deserving of financial support. I guess I can see the practical outcome of what Bunn is saying in Thailand where Pastors refuse to get involved in Tent making to supplement their income when their church is too small to financially support them (see my blog entry of 5 April 09). They think it is demeaning of there position as Pastors. Where did Thai Pastors get this notion, if not from missionaries? The question I'm working through is what is the better model for church planting.
Post a Comment